There is one thing you don't have in there, which I think plays a bigger role in this whole bounty mess than most people realize: US Congress. Goodell got reamed by a Congressional panel on player safety in 2009. The collection of ex-player lawsuits is one thing, but the NFL's antitrust exemption is another. With the money the NFL makes, they could easily work settlements with ex-players that get paid over time, just like the tobacco industry did. BUT, if US Congress gets pissed off enough at the NFL and decides to revisit the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961...

My Conspiracy theory which holds far more weight is this is just a plot to make sure the Saints DO NOT get to the Super Bowl in their own stadium.

I find it even a little more supporting of this with the fact Goodell reissued the suspensions following a Saints win.

Why didnt he do that before when they were losing?

I dont believe in coincidences and their is too many of them.

I can tell you another one to;

Referees from this point may aid the Saints greatly from this point on in order to get revenge on the NFL and Goodell, whereas the replacement officials pretty much blew 4 games that the Saints could of won.

There is one thing you don't have in there, which I think plays a bigger role in this whole bounty mess than most people realize: US Congress. Goodell got reamed by a Congressional panel on player safety in 2009. The collection of ex-player lawsuits is one thing, but the NFL's antitrust exemption is another. With the money the NFL makes, they could easily work settlements with ex-players that get paid over time, just like the tobacco industry did. BUT, if US Congress gets pissed off enough at the NFL and decides to revisit the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961...

They also tried to hire Jeb Bush before Goodell. A man with 0 .0 football experience. When he turned them down they went with Roger. His wife, her father was on the Bush administration. They knew this was coming.

Well, the investigation of the Saints clearly came out of that NFC Championship game, and out of the Vikings/Childress and their fans complaining and whining and mewling about it, after the fact. If they didn't whine and complain about it so much, nobody would be talking about this at all today. If this supposed "bounty" stuff happened in a game of Cleveland vs. Jacksonville, and was a "bounty" somebody had on Brady Quinn or Todd Bouman in 2009, no one would even freaking care. The punishment would be minimal, some lumps would be taken, small announcement, and the story would be OVER.

It's not very hard to see that the Saints weren't supposed to win that game, that the Saints in the Super Bowl was not the outcome "they" -- meaning not just Goodell, or the NFL "shield", but also the big media and the network and "the fans" and frankly most of the world -- wanted to see. That's when all the trouble started. To me, that's the Juicy Conspiracy Theory that keeps sticking its ugly head up, no matter how people try and beat it back, or label it as Tin Foil Hat, or say it's Paranoia or "Saints fans are crazy" or whatever. Again and again, in every memo and public statement, Goodell and the whole bounty thing is ludicrously focused on Favre and that NFC Championship game, it is kind of obvious and not subtle at all. The rest of the evidence is basically just window dressing to point back to that game.

They even changed the rules of playoff overtime for the first time since 1941, the following spring, as quick as they could, just because the Saints won that game. No other plausible reason for it. Changing the overtime rules = them openly saying, they think the outcome of that game was incorrect. That was the rules of the game and they didn't like how it turned out. So this way in their minds they can retro actively give the ball back to Favre one more time, and he scores a TD instead of throwing a pick, and then it's Favre vs. Manning, the game "everybody" wanted to see.

They even rigged and engineered the vote with the owners, on the rule change, so that they knew they had enough votes to pass it, then let the Vikings switch and vote against it, so as to save face.

Then... Peyton Manning stormed off after losing the Super Bowl... WITHOUT shaking hands! He also felt CHEATED.

Too much has happened for this to be just a vendetta. For it to have gone this far and for Goodell to go as far as he went with the punishments...IT HAS TO BE ABOUT MONEY...(concussion lawsuits pending) AND GOODELL HAS TO BE ACTING AS A PUPPET FOR THE OWNERS. NO COMMISIONER WOULD EVER DO THE THINGS HE IS DOING UNLESS HE KNEW HE HAD FULL SUPPORT OF ALL THE OWNERS.

x626, that still does not explain Benson hiring Freech's high dollar investigative firm to get to the bottom of it. Are you saying this was a front as well? I personally think Benson is a small fry in terms of the owners. A lot of his loyalties are either dead or were pushed out years ago. I do agree though with the Saints being a prime candidate for this punishment. We are without question the loyalists fans in the NFL. Win or lose, we really just want to be entertained and have a good time. This isn't the case with most teams. Losing in epic fashion is just a part of La culture as Monday Red Beans and Rice.

What was the outcome of that investigation? We heard he hires that team but its findings were never released as far as I know.

Which leaves us with three plausible reasons.
1. It was a front.
2. It found the league was correct.
3. It found the league was wrong..... If this was it's findings why is it not being used in court?

March 2: N.F.L. announces investigation into potential bounty program by Saints, first reported to the league by an anonymous player in 2010 and, the league says, corroborated with more evidence in 2011.

Wikipedia:
"The NFL began investigating the Saints in 2010 in response to allegations of deliberate attempts to injure players during the 2009–10 playoffs, but the investigation stalled until late in the 2011 season. blah blah blah"

I have seen nothing that said the league investigated bounties on the Saints in 2009.

Those statements are true the "official investigation" announcement was in 2010.

Put your investigator hat on for a minute and think about this. Would you "publicly announce" an investigation before you start? Are you giving the party you are investigating time to warm up the shredders?

Would you announce a public investigation of a multimillion dollar franchise before you had done a preliminary investigation and found probable cause to go public?

Why would you publicly announce a public investigation if not for a "dog and pony" show? The league investigating the Saints is essentially the league investigating it self.

Remember all of the "The saints were told to stop and they didnt"... Isnt that the reason for all of this? Why would the league tell the Saints to stop something in 2009 if they had no knowledge of this?

This was well underway and going on before the Vikings game."The league said that the Saints’ owner, Tom Benson, cooperated with the investigation and that when he was made aware of the new information in January before the playoffs, he told Loomis to stop the bounties immediately. Loomis did not take any action, the league said. When the initial allegation was made in 2010, Loomis denied any knowledge of the bounties and pledged that he would make sure no program was in place. "http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/sp...opponents.html

So no.. The investigation did not come out of the NFC Championship game against the Vikings... it was in full swing before.